I'm looking through the literature on the topic. It seems like hydrophilic PVDF membranes are ideal for low-protein binding but it also sounds like Regenerated Cellulose is an appropriate substitution.

Looking at one resource (http://www.zellnet.com/elispotplatescolumn/)

When PVDF filter plates were introduced, some investigators chose to use PVDF plates and some continued to use NC. The reasons for choosing one plate (membrane) over the other are highly varied and won’t be addressed in detail here. The fact that some laboratories and individual researchers feel strongly that one membrane is superior to the other runs contrary to the large body of Western blotting experience: Despite some clear-cut differences in how each of the membranes can be used, there is essentially no reported difference in terms of detection sensitivity or signal to noise on NC versus PVDF in the Western Blotting application. This having been said, it is clear is that the two membranes and their properties are quite different.

The assay that I am looking at in particular is protein/nanoparticle binding to mammalian cells. I am looking for a balance that will enable me to remove free protein without fouling the membrane and/or killing my cells.

  • $\begingroup$ May I ask why you need this? Are you a grad student, is this for a high school project, hobby? $\endgroup$
    – CHM
    Apr 3, 2012 at 3:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @CHM Grad student. I do this for research and the greater good of mankind. $\endgroup$
    – bobthejoe
    Apr 3, 2012 at 5:51

1 Answer 1


Apparently poly(ethylene oxide) is a biologically interesting polymer, with minimal protein interactions.

The apparently means that I haven't tried it myself, but my polymer teacher told us so.



Nomenclature seems to favour poly(ethylene glycol). I prefer poly(ethylene oxide), because then I know from what monomer the polymer was synthesized.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .